Eye for Transport Report

8/8/2019 Eye for Transport Report

1/42

eyefortransports Green Transportation& Logistics Report July 2008

f /S i bl SC P 1

Summary and analysis ofeyefortransports survey:

Green Transportation & Logistics

July 2008

For further details please contact:Katharine [email protected] Toll-free: 1 800 814 3459 ext 329Rest of world: +44 (0) 207 375 7207


2/42


f /S i bl SC P 2

Table of Contents

I. Index of charts and tables . 4

II. Introduction .. 6

III. Methodology and approach.. 8

IV. Profile of respondents ... 8

V. Green priorities and annual revenue 9

VI. Green priorities and transportation and logistics

partnerships .. 12

VII. The growing importance of green issues to

transport and logistics processes .. 14

VIII. Key drivers for instigating green initiatives . 15

IX. Effect of supply chain greening on efficiency .... 16

X. Expected ROI on green initiatives .... 18

XI. Current and planned green transport and

logistics initiatives . 18


3/42


f /S i bl SC P 3

NEW FOR 2008

XII. Whos responsible for green transportation

and logistics? ...... 22

XIII. Level of awareness of environmental programs

and initiatives 23

XIV. Carbon footprint measurement software . 25

XV. Drivers for measuring carbon footprints .. 26

XVI. Barriers to green transportation and logistics . 27

XVII. Change in scrutiny over corporate green claims .. 28

XVIII. Effect of US election results on transport emissions

regulations ... 29

XIX. Overall industry implications and conclusions 30

XX. eyefortransports Sustainable Supply Chain Summit 31


4/42


f /S i bl SC P 4

I. Index of Charts and Tables

i. Respondent Industry

ii. Respondent Annual Revenue

iii. Relative Importance of Green Issues Depending on Annual

Revenue

iv. Importance of Green Issues to Companies Overall Strategy

v. Use of Transportation/ Logistics Partner to Help Green

vi. Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and Logistics

Strategy Related to the Use of Logistics Partners

vii. Change of Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and

Logistics Processes Over Next Three Years

viii. Key Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and

Logistics Initiatives

ix. Effect of Green Initiatives on Supply Chain Efficiency

x. Expected ROI on Green Initiatives Over Next Three Years


5/42


f /S i bl SC P 5

xi. Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics

Initiatives

xii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and

Logistics Initiatives 2007

xiii. Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and

Logistics Initiatives 2008

NEW FOR 2008

xiv. Job Title of Person Responsible for Green Transportation and


xv. Level of Awareness of Environmental Programs and Initiatives

xvi. Carbon Footprint Measurement Software Used

xvii. Drivers for Measuring Carbon Footprints

xviii. Barriers to Green Transportation and Logistics

xix. Change in Scrutiny Over Corporate Green Claims

xx. Effect of US Election Results on Transport Emissions

Regulations


6/42


f /S i bl SC P 6

II. Introduction

Not long ago $200/barrel oil was a far-off, future scenario. Today its closer toreality then we like to think of, and the implications for the transportation andlogistics industry deserve serious consideration. Part of the solution to the steadilyincreasing cost of energy and oil is building sustainability into our operations. Asustainable operation simply means one that could be maintained at a certain levelindefinitely. For transportation, logistics and supply chain, it means a way ofworking that is both environmentally and financially sustainable.

Today, green supply chain initiatives are on the rise, and as opposed to five yearsago, it is the minority of companies who have not invested in some kind of

environmental initiative. While environmental logistics initiatives were pioneered inEurope and Asia, in the last few years North American companies have embracedthe challenge and potential benefits of operational greening, and are now amongthe global leaders, with a focus on how to go green and improve the bottom line, toensure increased competitiveness in what is a growing market for environmentallypreferable products and services.

And, with increased interest in and adoption of sustainable techniques, theavailable technologies and information to help companies do so have alsoimproved substantially. Nonetheless the exact means of planning, financing,implementing and benefiting from a greener supply chain are still ambiguous, and

corporate environmental strategies and knowledge is still kept close to home.

With this change in attitude and business strategy in mind, eyefortransportconducted the first Green Transportation & Logistics Survey in June - July2007, and the annual follow-up survey in May-July 2008. With up to 75% of acompanys carbon footprint coming from transportation and logistics, we chosechanges in this area to be the best representation of the planned and currentinitiatives companies are implementing to green their supply chains.

The greening of transportation and logistics is still a vague and unsettling thoughtfor many. With so many factors to consider and still so little practical information

available its easy to see why some either get it wrong or never even try. However,it is now clear that those who are working on environmental efforts have found theROI in green transportation and logistics. Based on the responses to the survey, itis evident that lean and green means gold if done in an informed and strategicfashion.


7/42


f /S i bl SC P 7

Where the cost of implementing green initiatives was once the main barrier tochange, now ROGI: Return on Green Investment is one of the main drivers for acorporate change of attitude and practice. So, what are the costs involved, andwhat is the business case for going green? With so many unknowns, how can youensure that your green transportation and logistics initiatives reduce your carbonfootprint and improve your bottom line? It is with these questions in mind thateyefortransport conducted the survey and compiled this Green Transportationand Logistics Report in an effort to improve knowledge sharing in thetransportation and logistics industry.

All the data gathered in this report will be discussed and debated at

eyefortransports 2nd Sustainable Supply Chain Summit being held at the StanfordCourt Hotel in San Francisco on October 15-17, 2008. For more information onthe survey results or the Summit please see the brochure at the end of this report,contact Katharine OReilly at [email protected], 1 800 814 3459 ext 329 or+44 (0) 207 375 7207 or visit the website at www.eft.com/SustainableSC.


8/42


f /S i bl SC P 8

III. Methodology and approach

eyefortransport conducted the Green Transportation & Logistics surveys fromJune to July 2007, and May to July 2008. Responses were solicited in a targetedemail campaign, which included select trade associations and industry databases.Respondents were asked a number of questions to establish the key drivers fortransportation and logistics greening, as well as the benefits and risks involved.

IV. Profile of respondents

271 transportation and logistics professionals responded to the survey in 2007,and an additional 235 responded to the 2008 survey, for a total of over 500respondents across the two years (including any repeat respondents for year two).Respondents were senior executives from companies working in various industryverticals.

45% of the total respondents are in the transport and logistics sector, 8% in hi-tech& electronics, 6% in food, and 5% in retail & consumer packaged goods. Theautomotive, chemical, and healthcare/ pharmaceutical sectors were fairly evenlyrepresented.

The defense/ aerospace industry was in the minority, which may or may not be anindication that supply chain greening does not feature high on the list of prioritiesfor these sectors.


9/42


f /S i bl SC P 9

Respondent Industry

3% 6%

6%

44%

27%1%3% 2%

8%

Automotive

Food

Chemicals

Defense/ Aerospace

Healthcare/ Pharmaceuticals

Hi-Tech & Electronics

Retail & Consumer PackagedGoodsTransportation/ LogisticsService ProviderOther

.

V. Green priorities and annual revenue

The majority of total respondents represented companies with annual revenueseither below 50 million US$ or above 1 billion US$.

Respondent Industry

2% 6%2%

8%

5%

45%

28%

3%1%

Automotive

Food

Chemicals

Defense/ Aerospace

Health Care/Pharmaceut

Hi-Tech & Electronics

Retail & ConsumerPackaged Goods

Transportation/ LogisticsService Provider

Other


10/42


f /S i bl SC P 10

Interestingly, however, a correlation was found among the responses between thedegree of importance of green issues and a companies annual revenue in bothyears.

31

11

8

4

3

41

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

% of Respondents

0-50 million

50-250 million

250-500 million

500-750 million

750 million - 1 billion

> 1 billion

Revenue(US$)

Respondent Annual Revenue


11/42


f /S i bl SC P 11

This suggests both that it is high grossing and highly successful companies whoare prioritizing green issues the most, and that this high prioritization of greenissues likely contributes to their success. This correlation was more pronouncedfor the highest revenue companies in 2008 as opposed to 2007, and suggests apolarization in the industry those companies who have committed to greeningefforts are moving ahead at a fast pace, while those with lower turnovers havejumped less between last year and this.

Over half (59%) of respondents reported that green issues were either important orvery important to their companies overall strategy in 2007. This figure jumped to64% in 2008. 20% in 2007 and 21% in 2008 reported green issues as fairlyimportant, 15% in 2007 and 13% in 2008 as somewhat important, and only 6% in2007 and lessening to 2% in 2008 designated green issues as not important. Thismakes it clear that most companies give green issues great consideration andweight when devising their business strategies, even more so in 2008 then in theprevious year.

0-50 million50 million -

1 billion > 1 billion

3.13.23.3

3.4

3.53.63.7

3.83.9

4

Degree of

Importanceof

Green Issues

(out of 5)

Annual Revenue (US$)

Relative Importance of Green Issues Depending on Annual Revenue

2007

2008


12/42


f /S i bl SC P 12

VI. Green priorities and transportation and logistics

partnerships

20.5% of survey respondents across 2007-2008 represented companies currentlyusing a logistics partner or service provider to help green their supply chain. Anaverage of 53.5% are not using a partner company for this process, but a furtheraverage of 26% are actively exploring the possibility of adding a partner companyto help push environmental initiatives forward. This number went down slightlybetween the two years, and the number of current partnerships increased,indicating that companies are taking on logistics partners, in part for this purpose.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

%

Very

important

Important Fairly

important

Somewhat

important

Not

important

Importance of Green Issues to Companies Overall

Strategies

2007

2008


13/42


f /S i bl SC P 13

Another correlation revealed by the survey responses was that between thedegree of importance of green issues to a companies transportation and logistics

strategy and that companies use of a transportation/ logistics partner to help themgreen their supply chains.

The survey revealed that, not entirely surprisingly, the more importance greenissues were given to a companies transportation and logistics strategy, the morelikely they were to either have partnered with a 3PL or other service provider tohelp them with green initiatives, or be exploring the possibility of doing so. Thiscorrelation was slightly more pronounced in 2008 then it was in 2007.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

%

Currently using a

logistics partner to

help

Not using a

logistics partner

but exploring the

possibility

Not using a

logistics partner

and no plans to

Use of Transportation/Logistics Partners to Help Green

2007

2008


14/42


f /S i bl SC P 14

VII. The growing importance of green issues to transport and

logistics processes

The vast majority of respondents, 70% in 2007 and 73% in 2008, divulged thatover the next three years green issues will become more important to theirtransport and logistics processes. An average of 19% expect green issues toremain as important to their transport and logistics processes as they are now, andonly 1% expect a lessening of importance.

Amazingly, an average of 8.5% of respondents identified green issues to becomethe No.1 priority for their transport and logistics processes over the next threeyears.

0

0.5

11.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Importance of

Green Issues to

Transportation

and Logistics

Strategy(out of 5)

Currently using a

logistics partner to

help

Not using a logistics

partner but exploring

the possibility

Not using a logistics

partner and no plans

to

Importance of Green Issues to Transportation and

Logistics Strategy Related to the Use ofTransportation/Logistics Partners

2007

2008


15/42


f /S i bl SC P 15

VIII. Key drivers for instigating green initiatives

One of the main aims of this survey was to pinpoint the key drivers for transportand logistics greening. Given the challenge greening is generally perceived to be,it was important to identify and highlight the reasons why companies have taken onthe challenge and invested in environmental initiatives.

The results reveal that government compliance, improved customer and publicrelations, a decreased fuel bill and financial ROI were the most important driversfor transport and logistics greening, with a more pronounced emphasis on each in

2008 as opposed to 2007. Especially notable is the increase in the importance ofthe ability of green initiatives to decrease a companys fuel bill as a driver in 2008over 2007.

However, increasing supply chain efficiency, improving investor relations,decreasing risk and a larger corporate responsibility agenda were also importantfactors in the strategic decision to go green, and each was regarded as moreimportant in 2008 then in 2007. Across the board the factors driving greeninitiatives in this industry have become more evident and more pressing, and theirability to initialize change is reflected in the comparative data here.

0

10

2030

40

50

60

70

80

%

No.1 priority Moreimportance

Sameimportance

Lessimportance

Change of Importance of Green Issues to Transportation

and Logistics Processes Over Next Three Years

2007

2008


16/42


f /S i bl SC P 16

The overall suggestion is that companies see an array of factors, rather than onemain factor, as part of the benefits of supply chain greening. The combination ofthese positive changes is thus the payback that companies are seeking when theytake on the challenge of green transport and logistics initiatives.

IX. Effect of green initiatives on supply chain efficiency

While increasing supply chain efficiency was rated as either an important or veryimportant driver for instigating green transport and logistics initiatives by 58% ofrespondents (see section VIII), 66% of respondents reported that the greeninitiatives they had implemented were not effecting the efficiency of their supplychains in 2007, decreasing to 57% in 2008.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% Total

Government compliance

Financial ROI

Improving Customer Relations

Improving public relations

Improving investor relations

Decreasing your fuel bill

Decreasing risk

Increasing supply chain efficiency

Part of a larger Corporate Responsibility Agenda

Key Drivers for Instigating Green Transportation and Logistics Initiatives

Very Important

Important

Reasonably Impor

Slightly Important

Not Important

N/A

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2

Importance (out of 5)

Government compliance

Financial ROI

Improving customer relations

Improving public relations

Improving investor relations

Decreasing your fuel bill

Decreasing risk

Increasing supply chain efficiency

Part of a larger Corporate Responsibility agenda

Key Drivers for Instigating Green Trans ortation and


20

20


17/42


f /S i bl SC P 17

This implies that improved supply chain efficiency is expected but not yet a realityfor many respondents. Hence, their green initiatives may be at a stage whereincreased efficiency has yet to be seen, but the initiative itself is one of theexpected results by its conclusion.

This is supported by the change in reports of increased efficiency between the twoyears. In 2007 27% of respondents reported seeing their current green transportand logistics initiatives improving the efficiency of their supply chains, whereas in2008 that figure has increased to 38% - an 11% increase in one year. 7% in 2007,then down to 5% in 2008, reported less efficiency due to green initiatives.

0

1020

30

40

50

60

70

%

More efficient Not affectingefficiency

Less efficient

Reported Effect

Effect of Green Initiatives on Supply Chain Efficiency

2007

2008


18/42


f /S i bl SC P 18

X. Expected ROI on green initiatives

When asked if they expected to see an ROI on their green initiatives within thenext three years, 36% of respondents disclosed that they expect to see bothfinancial and public relations payback in 2007, rising to 50% in 2008. On the otherhand, 37% in 2007 and 34% in 2008 said that they expect to see financial but notpublic relations ROI from their green initiatives in the near future. This suggeststhat companies are looking at financial rewards over public image as the mainshort-term payback for supply chain greening. The numbers of those expecting tosee little or no ROI on green initiatives have both dropped-off from last year to this.

05

10

1520

25303540

4550

%

Financial andpublic

relations

Financial butnot publicrelations

Not muchexpected

No ROIexpected

Expected ROI

Expected ROI on Green Initiatives Over Next Three Years

2007

2008

XI. Current and planned green transport and logisticsinitiatives

In order to survey the current green transportation and logistics landscape weasked respondents to reveal which actual green initiatives they have implementedor planned. The results reveal that 59% of respondents in 2007 and 72% in 2008are or are planning to improve energy efficiency, and an average of 42% are or areplanning to both use vehicle re-routing to reduce miles. The use of strategicwarehouse and distribution centre placement to go green dropped from 42% to37% between 2007 and 2008. A further 39% of respondents reported emissionsmeasuring and/or reductions as another favoured initiative in 2007, rising to adramatic 60% by 2008.


19/42


20/42


f /S i bl SC P 20

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ResponseF

requency

Specific Current or Planned Green Transportation and Logistics Initiatives

Product design and packaging

Recycling programs

SmartWay transport program

Returnables

Moving air to surface routes

Sustainable and LEED certified buildings

Hybrid or electric vehicle development or usage

Sustainable transport policies and 'green thinking'

Waste reduction & asset recovery

Leveraging green logistics technologies

Reduced paper and energy consumption

Green material usage

Maximizing load and monitoring fuel usage

Responsing to customer requirements

RFID and GPS

Going solar

Hydrogen enhanced combustion

Reductions in toxins and hazardous chemicalsInitiative

Waste reduction and asset recovery, leveraging green logistics technologies, reducedpaper and energy consumption, green material usage, responding to customerrequirements, technologies like RFID and GPS, and maximizing load and monitoringfuel usage were all cited an equal number of times.

The least self-reported initiatives were reductions in toxins and hazardous chemicals,hydrogen enhanced combustion, and going solar. This suggests that, at least atpresent, these initiatives are not seen as the most viable to the majority of industryprofessionals, or there is less industry knowledge or confidence about theirimplementation.


21/42


f /S i bl SC P 21

The same question asked in 2008 generated some distinctly different write-in

responses. This year sustainable transport policies and green thinking, as well asreducing paper and energy consumption topped the list of current or planned initiatives,demonstrating the perceived importance of a strong company sustainability policy andthe dissemination of those values internally. Sustainable and LEED certified buildingswere also identified, along with hybrid or electric vehicle development or usage.

Product design and packaging, recycling programs, green material usage, RFID andGPS, going solar and reducing toxins and hazardous chemicals in the supply chainwere also all mentioned.

0

1

2

3

4

Res onse

Frequency

Initiative

Specific Current or Planned Green

Transportation and Logistics Initiatives

Sustainable transport policies and 'green

thinking'

Reducing paper and energy consumption

Sustainable and LEED certified buildings

Hybrid or electric vehicle development or

usage

Product design and packaging

Recylcling Programs

Green material usage

RFID and GPS

Going solar

Reductions in toxins and hazardous

chemicals


22/42


f /S i bl SC P 22

NEW FOR 2008For the 2008 survey we wanted to isolate a few key areas of change between last yearand this. The trend for greening transportation and logistics has remained, hasstrengthened, and has also shifted in a number of ways, and due to a number of factors.This section will highlight some of the key areas of focus that have emerged in 2008.

XII. Whos responsible for green transportation and logistics?

One of the areas we get a lot of questions about is where the responsibility for theevaluation, adoption and implementation of green transportation & logistics initiatives isplaced within organizations. Our sense that the area of focus is still skewed wasreinforced by the 2008 survey data that showed a broad range of job titles taking orbeing allocated responsibility for this important area.

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

1

Job Title

Job Title of Person Res onsible for Green Trans ortation and


Logistics Director

Supply Chain Director

Operations Director

Transportation Director

Environmental Sustainability Director

Marketing Director

Compliance Director

Distribution Director

CSR Director

Other


23/42


f /S i bl SC P 23

The most common responses were Logistics Director and Supply Chain Director,followed closely by Operations Director, Transportation Director, and recently createdjob titles such as Environmental Sustainability Director or the like. Marketing Director,Compliance Director, then Distribution Director and CSR Director followed, howeverthe most common response was Other.

The range of write-in responses to this option was very broad: over 100 respondentswrote in the job title relevant to their organization. The most common write-inresponses included CEO, CSO, EHS, Engineering, Government and Public Affairs,Internal Consultants, Logistics Safety and Energy, Procurement, Quality,Technology, and Asset Management. Additionally, reports of a Green Team or acombination of executives across business units also came in, indicating that despite

the diversity of relevant job titles there is co-ordination in some organizations.

XIII. Level of awareness of environmental programs and initiatives

As the transportation and logistics industrys grasp of environmental issues strengthens,we thought it crucial to gauge the level of awareness of certain high profileenvironmental programs available to our industry. We asked respondents whether they

were Participating in or using, Familiar with, had Heard of or had Never heard of 11of the most important programs for the industry.


24/42


f /S i bl SC P 24

The results showed that 65% of respondents had never heard of the GHG Protocol,63% hadnt heard of Sustainability 360, 59% hadnt heard of The Chicago ClimateExchange, 54% had never heard of Carbon Labeling, and 49% hadnt ever heard of theEPA Climate Leaders Program. A further 77% of executives were either familiar with orheard of Carbon Offsets, 79% the Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissions Targets, and 53%the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Then, 6% of respondents indicated that they areparticipating in or using carbon offsetting, and an impressive 19% reported participationby their company in the EPA SmartWay program.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%

EPA Climate Leaders Program

EPA SmartWay Program

Carbon Disclosure Project

EU Emissions Trading Scheme

Carbon Offsets

The Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissi ons Targets

The Chicago Climate Exchange

GHG Protocol

The Carbon Trust

Sustainability 360

Carbon Labeling

Level of Awareness of Environmental Programs and Initiatives

Never heard of

Heard of

Familiar w ith

Participating in or usi


25/42


f /S i bl SC P 25

What follows are some useful links on these various programs so that if you have notheard of them, or would like to know more, you can access more information.

Carbon Labeling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emission_labelSustainability 360 - http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/6238.aspxThe Carbon Trust - http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/The GHG Protocol - http://www.ghgprotocol.org/The Chicago Climate Exchange - http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/The Kyoto Protocol Carbon Emissions Targets -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_ProtocolCarbon Offsets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsetEU Emissions Trading Scheme - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm

Carbon Disclosure Project - http://www.cdproject.net/EPA SmartWay Program - http://www.epa.gov/smartway/EPA Climate Leaders Program - http://www.epa.gov/stateply/

XIV. Carbon footprint measurement software

42

30

16

7

2 1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

No plans to use

software

Still researching

which software

to use

Developed an

internal system

Other GreenSigma

(IBM)

CarbonView

(Supply Chain

Consulting)

EPA SmartWay Carbonalysis

(Green 2020)

Carbon Footprint Measurement Software Used


26/42


f /S i bl SC P 26

With each day bringing the announcement of new software or advancement on softwareto help measure and manage the carbon footprint of supply chains, we wanted to knowwhat tools were being used by the industry currently. Our results showed that while46% have no current plans to use a software solution for this purpose, another 30% areactively researching which software to use. 16% have deployed an internal system, anda handful of respondents are already using each of IBMs GreenSigma, CarbonView,EPA SmartWay or WarmModel, and Carbonalysis. The overall results point to the factthat the industry is by and large still making its mind up on what software tools are mostuseful for this purpose.

XV. Drivers for measuring carbon footprints

Considering what looks to be a high level of scrutiny over software to measure thecarbon footprint of logistics and supply chain, the level of interest in doing so still showsitself to be high. As such we asked respondents what is driving them to look into andwork towards measuring the carbon footprint of their transportation and logistics.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%

To cut costs

Customer requests

Partner requests

Anticipating tighter regulations

To attract investors

To enhance reputation

To improve supply chain efficiency

Drivers for Measuring Carbon Footprints

Top priority

Secondary priorit

Third priority

A consideration


27/42


f /S i bl SC P 27

Our results show that cutting costs and enhancing reputation are the top reasons whycompanies are investing in measuring the carbon footprint of their supply chain. Thenext most common responses are improving supply chain efficiency and customerrequests. Following this, anticipating tighter regulations and attracting investors werestill common, and partner requests were the least common but still a strongconsideration.

XVI. Barriers to green transportation and logistics

Given the numerous strong drivers for implementing green transportation and logisticsinitiatives, we wanted to find out why more companies are not or have not yet takenthese steps and initiated projects themselves.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%

Custom ers won't pay a premium

Not convinced green trend will continue

Lack of necessary customer dem and

Not high enough on list of priorities

Not enough people driving the process internally

Nobody driving the process internally

Not a top priority for managem ent

LSPs responsibilty

Lack of partner support to start process

Not enough knowledge to start the process

Negative impact on supply chain

Payback period i s too long

Cost is too high

Barriers to Adoption of Green Transportation and


Big barrier

A barrier

Somewhat of a barrie

Not a barrier


28/42


f /S i bl SC P 28

The barriers most commonly highlighted include the implementation costs being too

high and/or the payback period being perceived to be too long. From an organizationalperspective respondents cited issues such as nobody driving the process internally, notenough people driving the process internally, not enough knowledge to start theprocess, and green issues not being high enough on the list of priorities as barriers tomoving forward. This is not surprising, as over and over we see that strong leadership by a designated team or, often, by one individual is key to starting green projectsand moving them forward.

Lower down on the list of barriers were the perception that customers wont pay apremium for greener services, a lack of necessary customer demand, and/or a lack ofpartner support to start the process. The least cited barriers were a perceived negative

impact on the supply chain, the idea that greening is the LSPs responsibility, and a lackof conviction in the idea that the green trend will continue. Overall the most citedbarriers were those that made adoption more difficult, rather than those that madegreen projects unreasonable to embark upon at all.

XVII. Change in scrutiny over corporate green claims

The attention paid to companies claims of being green or greener then theircompetitors has certainly increased over the last two years. Accusations ofgreenwashing have led to more serious consideration of the pros and cons of

marketing yourself as a green operation. Thus, we asked respondents how they hadobserved the change in scrutiny over companies in the transportation and logisticsindustry calling themselves green over the last year.

26

44

19

11

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

%

Largeincrease

Increase Slightincrease

No change Decrease

Change

Change in Scrutiny Over Companies Calling Themselves

'Green'


29/42


f /S i bl SC P 29

Our respondents agree that scrutiny has increased, with 26% observing a largeincrease, and a further 44% an increase. 19% saw a slight increase, 11% saw nochange, and no respondents report a decrease.

XVIII. Effect of US election results on transport emissionsregulations

With the US Presidential race well on its way, we wanted to gauge how the transportand logistics industry felt the election results would effect the governmental regulation oftransport-related emissions. A strong majority, 84%, agreed that tougher regulations

were more likely under the Democrats, while 16% thought the Republicans would bringstricter environmental rules.

Effect of US Election Results on Transport Emissions

Regulations

84%

16%

Tougher regulations underDemocrats

Tougher regulations underRepublicans


30/42


f /S i bl SC P 30

XIX. Overall industry implications and conclusionsThe supply chain industry is changing, as are the views of the professionals within it.With green transportation and logistics initiatives proving to be a challenging yetrewarding reality for companies if they wish to compete in todays market, muchuncertainty about how to go about making these changes still exists.

Nonetheless, the industry agrees that success and profitability in the future requiresthinking and acting green today, and that transportation and logistics greening is thesmart way of achieving that goal.

For more information on what leading companies are doing to green their transportationand logistics, see eyefortransports 2nd Sustainable Supply Chain Summit featuredbelow.


31/42


32/42


33/42


34/42


35/42


36/42


37/42


38/42


39/42


40/42


41/42


42/42

Documents

Eye for Transport Report